Johnson v. Richard Joyner et al. Doc.

4
Case 8:07-cv-01296-JSM-TBM Document 4 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ANDRE T. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:07-CV-1296-T-30TBM

RICHARD JOYNER,

Defendant.
/

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1983

(Dkt. 1). The complaint names Richard Joyner, a lawyer, as Defendant. With his complaint,

Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Insolvency in which he requests to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (Dkt. 2).

Title 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that-- (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;
or
(B) the action or appeal-- (I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.

The procedure required by §1915(e)(2) is a screening process, to be applied by the Court sua

sponte and as early as possible in the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 8:07-cv-01296-JSM-TBM Document 4 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 2 of 4

In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that on January 24, 2005, Defendant appeared in

court on behalf of Plaintiff, and he also demanded discovery from the State Attorney’s office

which he received at some unspecified time. Subsequently, Defendant accused Plaintiff of

taking Plaintiff’s case file from his office, and on March 28, 2005, he filed a motion to

withdraw from representation of Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, on May 31, 2005, the State

Attorney’s office informed the Public Defender’s office that the discovery material had been

previously sent to Defendant, and, thereafter, the Public Defender was unable to obtain the

discovery material and had to proceed to trial without it. Plaintiff asserts that he never

obtained Defendant to represent him, and he was prejudiced by Defendant’s actions because

Plaintiff went to trial without the discovery material that was provided to Defendant.

In any §l983 action, the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential

elements to a §l983 action are present:

(1) whether the person engaged in the conduct complained of

was acting under color of state law; and (2) whether the alleged
conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities
guaranteed under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Duke v. Massey, 87 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); see also Hale v.

Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). In addition, to establish liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege an affirmative causal connection between the

Defendant's conduct and the constitutional deprivation. See Swint v. City of Wadley,

Alabama, 51 F.3d 988, 999 (11th Cir. 1995); Tittle v. Jefferson County Comm'n, 10 F.3d

1535, 1541 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994) (Kravitch, J., concurring). Based on Plaintiff's statements

2
 Case 8:07-cv-01296-JSM-TBM Document 4 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 3 of 4

regarding the nature of his claim against the Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

failed to make the threshold showing required to proceed with a §1983 claim.

"To satisfy section 1983's ‘under color of [state law]’ requirement, a plaintiff must

demonstrate that ‘the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [is] fairly

attributable to the State.’" Gene Thompson Lumber Co. v. Davis Parmer Lumber Co., 984

F.2d 401, 403 (11th Cir. 1993); quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102

S. Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1982). Plaintiff does not allege or demonstrate that

Defendant is a “state actor” or that the alleged deprivation took place under color of state law

as required by §1983.

A pro se plaintiff's allegations must be read in a liberal fashion. See Tannenbaum v.

United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that "[p]ro se pleadings are

held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys"). The Court cannot,

however, proceed with a cause of action under §1983 where the named Defendant is not a

state actor.

While a plaintiff is not required to prove his claim in his complaint, he must allege

sufficient facts in the complaint which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, support the conclusion that he may be able to establish that he is entitled to the

relief he seeks under §1983. Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden, and the Court concludes

that no relief could be granted against this defendant under any set of facts that could be

proved consistent with the allegation made by Plaintiff in his complaint. See Hishon v. King

3
 Case 8:07-cv-01296-JSM-TBM Document 4 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 4 of 4

& Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's civil rights complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for

which the Court can grant relief. (Dkt. 1).

2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment against Plaintiff, terminate all pending

motions, and close this file.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 26, 2007.

SA:sfc

Copy to: Plaintiff pro se